Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Rabbi sued for circumcising his son

Why I am sueing the orthodox Rabbi Yehuda Teichtal for having a circumcision performed on his son
I'd like to make one thing very clear right up front:

This lawsuit is not driven by any anti-Jewish resentments, but by the
strong belief that all children bear the same inalienable rights.

With it I don't aim to attack the Jewish naming ceremony that
involves amputation of the foreskin, that is an issue for an internal
debate among the Jewish people.

I want to point out explicitly that I reject any ideology or action
that is directed against a humane, tolerant, free and democratic value-
and law-abiding society. I will refuse or quit any cooperation with
persons or groups of whom I think would put a society based on
democratic values, unconditional and at any time, in question.

In that spirit I also disapprove of any misuse of my efforts to
further children's rights to bodily integrity by people that use the
issue of circumcision to fuel their discriminating thoughts against
minorities.

For now my aim is to shed some light on the circumstances of this
particular circumcision. It clearly shows that some people are unwilling
to abide to at least the minimum standards set forth by law, for
example just obeying the rules for proper medical treatment.

In the video published on the website of the Berlin Tagesspiegel
one can see how Mr. Menachem Fleischmann takes a mouthful of wine, then
leans down over baby Mendel Teichtal to suck blood from his bleeding
penis.

In §1631d BGB the law states that parents may only consent to a
foreskin amputation if it is to be performed according to the rules of
medical science, with the degree of skill and learning commonly applied
under all the circumstances in the community by the average prudent
reputable member of the profession.

...

The act of performing a Metzitzah B'peh in itself would be a
violation of the demand for adherence to the rules for medical treatment
to make the foreskin amputation legal according to §1631d BGB.

It is not to be assumed that the legislator intended to legalize the
Metzitzah B'peh. During the hearing in the justice committee of the
German Bundestag on Nov. 26th, 2012, Rabbi and urologist Dr. med. Antje
Yael Deusel stated: "The most recent medical standards concerning
surgical execution, including sterility and appropriate pain treatment,
both during and after the operation, have to be met. A so-called
Metzitzah B'peh - meaning a direct sucking of blood from the wound - is
obsolete and has to be omitted unconditionally." (German protocoll from
the hearing)

...

Another reason for me to file this lawsuit is to clarify the practice
of "Periah". It can be assumed that the Mohel - when alone with the
infant in an adjacent room - while do what he called "caring for the
wound" - performed a radical foreskin amputation on the infant.

During a Periah, the remaining inner layer of the foreskin - which on
newborns is fused to the glans, much like a fingernail to the nail bed -
is scraped off all the way down to the corona glandis.
(https://www.realeyz.tv/de/its-a-boy.html)

...

I believe it should be investigated whether the entire inner layer of
the foreskin down to the corona glandis has been removed, and if,
whether this can still be considered part of the naming ceremony or
rather an infliction of bodily harm not covered by §1631d BGB.

...

In conclusion, as Mr. Teichtal - because his involvement in the
german discussion 2012 - must know about the illegality of his acts. I
see the way the ritual has been performed on March 3rd, 2013, as a
deliberate provocation.

Also there is one thing I'm totally aware of: by far the most people of Jewish descent in Germany don't have their sons circumcised.
Only a small minority has their sons circumcised, and of those only a
few have it done to such an extent and following such an archaic rite
like Mr. Teichtal had it done on his son on March 3rd.